A Systematic Review on Microservice Testing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<title>Abstract</title> Microservices have emerged to change software architecture into a style of loosely coupled facilities cooperating via a lightweight way. This architecture makes a more scalable and resilient artifact that is easier to evolve and deploy. However, how can we ensure that microservices are defect-free and satisfy expected behaviors? Like other software styles, microservices must be tested in various ways. Employing heterogeneous platforms in microservice development and microservices characteristics, such as scalability and resiliency demand different test approaches from other software applications. This paper produces a systematic literature review on articles published from 2011 on microservice testing. Of the 98 relevant studies found in the literature, 35 have been included in this survey. Primary studies have been summarized by their novelty, benefits, and gaps. Moreover, they are compared in terms of their techniques, outcomes, and evaluations. Studying the current test method’s limitations identifies open problems discussed during the paper. Results of this study identify the current achievements and future possible directions in the microservice testing domain. This survey finds resiliency testing and finding abnormal components in a production environment as the most common approaches for testing and validating microservice integrations and behavior. However, there is still room for generalizing fault injection methods and addressing microservice-specific features in test approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.012 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it